Vol.  XXXII,  i 


Whole  No.  125 


THE 

1^1  Ol>  TY\  !  j  C  ;  ^  )  [jSloti  cir  d 

Him  do-  Eu-y*  *  pe.a.  m  pa3  a-taA  s  \  v\  b  an>.  s  kr  1 1 

AMERICAN 


* 

Journal  of  Philology 


EDITED  BY 


BASIL  L.  GILDERSLEEVE 

Francis  White  Professor  of  Greek  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 


BALTIMORE:  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 
London  :  Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  TrObner  &  Co. 

Paris:  Albert  Fontemoing  Leipsic  :  F.  A.  Brockhaus 


January,  February,  March  . 

1911 


CONTENTS. 


I. — Vahlen’s  Ennius.  By  Charles  Knapp,  ......  i 

II. — The  Indo-European  Palatals  in  Sanskrit.  By  Leonard  Bloom¬ 
field,  . 36 

III. — The  Introduction  of  Masks  on  the  Roman  Stage.  By  Catharine 

Saunders,  .  . . 5S 


IV. — K  and  II  Forms  in  the  Early  Ionic  Poets.  By  T.  Hudson- 

WlLLIAMS, . 74 


Reviews  and  Book  Notices: . 85 

Byvvater’s  Aristotle  on  the  Art  of  Poetry. —  Petersen’s  Greek  Diminu¬ 
tives  in  -lov.  A  Study  in  Semantics. — Bender’s  The  Suffixes  -viant 
and  -vant  in  Sanskrit  and  Avestan. 


Reports:  * . 

Archiv  fur  lateinische  Lexikographie  und  Grammatik. —  Philologus. 

Brief  Mention, . 

Recent  Publications, . 

Books  Received, . 


.  98 


.  112 
.  123 
.  127 


Open  to  original  communications  in  all  departments  of  philology, 
classical,  comparative,  oriental,  modern  ;  condensed  reports  of  current 
philological  work  ;  summaries  of  chief  articles  in  the  leading  philological 
journals  of  Europe  ;  reviews  by  specialists,  bibliographical  lists.  Four 
numbers  constitute  a  volume,  one  volume  each  year.  Subscription  price 
$3.00  a  year  (foreign  postage  50  cents),  payable  to  the  publisher  in 
advance;  single  numbers,  $1.00  each.  Suitable  advertisements  will  be 
inserted  at  the  following  rates  : 


1  TIME. 

2  T. 

3  T. 

4  T. 

One  page . 

$16  00 

$30  00 

$40  00 

$60  00 

Half  page  • . 

8  00 

16  00 

20  00 

26  00 

Quarter  page . . 

4  00 

8  00 

12  00 

16  00 

Eighth  page . 

2  00 

4  00 

6  00 

8  00 

The  English  Agents  of  the  American  Journal  of  Philology  are  Messrs. 
Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner  &  Co.,  Paternoster  House,  Charing  Cross 
Road,  London,  W.  C. 

Special  Notice. — The  stock  of  complete  sets  of  The  American 
Journal  of  Philology  has  passed  over  into  the  hands  of  the  under¬ 
signed.  These  sets  will  be  sold  for  the  present  at  the  reduced 
price  of  $63,  for  the  thirty-one  volumes,  cash  to  accompany  the 
order.  Single  volumes,  $3  (foreign  postage,  50  cents)  ;  single 
numbers,  $1  each,  so  far  as  they  can  be  supplied.  Address, 

The  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Published  quarterly.  Three  dollars  a  year  (foreign  postage, 

50  cents). 


ZU  f:orb  Q0afftmore  (pr<>00 

BALTIMORE,  MD.,  U.  S.  A. 


II.— THE  INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


1.  The  Indie  and  the  Iranian  languages  differ  greatly  in  their 
treatment  of  the  IE.  stopped  consonants.  We  are  struck  by  the 
frequent  change  of  stops  to  spirants  in  Iranian,  as  opposed  to  the 

conservative  ”  history,  in  this  respect,  of  the  Sanskrit.  The 
former  is  a  spirantizing  language,  like  the  old  Germanic. 

Thus  the  Iranian  shows  us  spirants  for  the  IE.  aspirated  voice¬ 
less  stops,  as  in  Av.  paQ-a  O.  P.  paQi-m  (Sk.  path-  pathi -),  and 
for  the  IE.  voiceless  stops  before  consonants,  as  in  Av.  afs  (Sk. 
ap ),  suxra-  O.  P.  Quxra-  (Sk.  s'ukrd-s'),  Av.  dwqm  O.  P.  6(u)wam 
(Sk.  tvdm ).1 

The  Younger  Avestan,  moreover,  shows  us  spirants  for  the  IE. 
aspirated  and  simple  voiced  stops,  as  in  a^wi  (Sk.  abhi )  arid  yna 
(Sk.  gna).  We  may  note  also  such  YAv.  double  spirants  as  in 
uxha-  (Sk.  uktha-m)  and  vax?hra-  (Sk.  vaktra-m). 

2.  To  recall  these  well-known  facts  would  be,  strictly  speaking, 
sufficient  for  our  purposes  in  the  present  discussion:  it  may, 
however,  be  instructive  to  consider  briefly  what  physiological 
causes  probably  brought  about  these  changes  of  pronunciation  in 
Iranian  and  Younger  Avestan. 

The  spirantizing  of  voiceless  aspirates  in  Iranian  is  parallel  to 
that  in  Germanic,  and  may  like  the  latter  be  attributed  to  a  pro¬ 
nunciation  with  increased  stress  of  breath.  Cf.  especially  H. 
Meyer,  Z.  f.  d.  Alt.  45,  101  ff.  The  agreement  of  Iranian  and 
Germanic  in  not  spirantizing  these  sounds  after  a  spirant,  as  in 
Av.  spara-t  (Sk.  sphura-ti)  is  significant  not  only  of  a  like  cause 
for  the  Iranian  and  the  Germanic  phenomena,  but  also  of  this 
particular  cause :  for  the  utterance  of  a  preceding  spirant,  in 
requiring  a  comparatively  great  volume  of  breath,  lessens  the 
breath  stress  for  the  following  stop  and  so  prevents  spirantiza- 

1  As  constant  reference  to  an  often  divergent  set  of  views  might  prove  con¬ 
fusing,  we  may  here  refer  once  for  all  to  the  treatment  of  the  IE.  palatals  in 
Aryan  in  Brugmann’s  Grundriss  I2,  §§610-618.  714-720.  1007,  12,  which  has 
been  looked  upon  as  the  standard  view  of  the  subject.  All  examples  are 
taken  from  the  Grundriss  and  from  Whitney’s  Sanskrit  Grammar3,  §§142. 
145-147.  214-224,  c.  612,  d.  617,  b.  832,  a.  833,  a.  890,  a. 


A  °)\.l 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


37 


~  tion.  Similarly  in  E.  ten  we  pronounce  an  aspirated  fortis,  ten 
or  then ,  but  in  E.  step  a  simple  fortis  or  voiceless  lenis,  step  or 
sdep.  So  also  G.  tut  vs.  Stute ,  Dan.  Time  vs.  Stime ;  and  it  is 
.  conceivable  that  the  very  great  breath  stress  of  Dan.  Time  may 
in  time  produce  eime  while  the  t  in  Stime  would  be  retained  as 
a  stop. 

The  similar  retention  of  the  stop  after  nasals  in  Iranian,  as  in 
Av.  panta  (Sk.  phnthd-s )  is  an  indication  that  breath  stress  was 
weaker  here  than  in  Germanic,  where  spirantization  took  place 
in  spite  of  the  escape  of  breath  in  a  preceding  nasal.  Another 
indication  of  such  a  difference  between  Iranian  and  Germanic  is 
the  retention  in  Iranian  of  voiceless  unaspirated  stops.  The 
general  increase  of  breath  stress  in  Iranian  was  sufficient  to  make 
spirants  of  voiceless  stops  followed  by  aspiration  (with  open 
glottis),  but  not  of  voiceless  stops  immediately  followed  by 
closing  of  the  vocal  chords  for  a  vowel,  as  in  Av. pita  O.  P .  pita 
(Sk.  pita).  Before  a  consonant,  however,  where  the  closing  of 
the  vocal  chords  was  not  so  immediate,  spirantization  took  place, 
as  in  the  examples  above  given.  This  is  an  illustration  of  the 
familiar  fact  that  the  utterance  of  a  voiceless  sound,  i.  e.,  of  one 
-  with  open  position  of  the  glottis,  involves  the  passing  through 
the  mouth  of  far  more  breath  than  the  utterance  of  a  voiced 

. K  sound,  during  which  the  vocal  chords  are  closed  and  allow  breath 

to  pass  only  in  the  interstices  of  their  vibration, — compare  the 
well-known  experiment  of  trying  to  blow  out  a  candle  first  with 
a  voiced,  then  with  a  voiceless  sound. 

v-  Thus  we  may  perhaps  also  explain  the  fact  that  the  voiced 
(  stops  became  voiceless  in  Germanic,  but  in  Iranian,  where  the 
breath  stress  was  weaker,  remained  sonant.  This  is  for  various 
reasons  a  most  doubtful  matter,  as  is  also  the  spirantizing  of  the 
voiced  aspirates  in  Germanic;  suffice  it  therefore  to  note  that  in 
Germanic  both  these  classes  of  sounds  were  changed  to  sounds 
requiring  more  breath  for  utterance,  whereas  in  Iranian  this  was 
c  not  the  case,  aspirate  and  simple  sonant  stops  here  coinciding, 
£  most  probably  as  simple  sonant  stops. 

^  A  different  explanation  is  necessary  for  the  phenomena  of 
_j  Younger  Avestan.  Here  the  Iranian  voiced  stops  became  voiced 
spirants.  Increased  breath  stress  alone  would  probably  have 
turned  these  sounds  into  voiceless  stops,  as  in  Germanic  and 
later  in  High  German  and  Danish  ;  it  seems  rather  as  if  in  the 
Younger  Avestan  looseness  of  articulation  were  involved.  This 


i 


38 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


is  surely  the  case  where  Younger  Avestan  changed  Iran,  ft  to 
f8  xd,  as  in  uxha-  and  vax*8ra-.  Such  groups  as  ft  gt  can  be 
conveniently  pronounced  with  any  degree  or  increase  of  breath 
stress ;  they  are  stable  in  such  highly  stressed  languages  as 
English,  German,  and  Danish.  The  YAv.  change  to  double 
spirants  is  a  decided  sign  of  loose  articulation  of  stops. 

3.  It  is  probable,  then,  that  the  Iranian  dialects  diverged  from 
the  Sanskrit  in  being  spoken  with  increased  breath  stress,  and 
that  the  Younger  Avestan  further  differed  in  loosely  articulating 
its  stops.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  Iranian 
languages  differed  from  the  Sanskrit  in  tending  toward  spirant 
pronunciation  of  stopped  consonants ,  and  that  this  is  especially 
true  of  the  Younger  Avestan.  In  the  following  pages,  whenever 
mention  is  made  of  the  “stronger  breath  stress  of  the  Iranian” 
or  “looser  articulation  of  the  Avestan  ”,  the  empirical  reader  will 
always  be  able  to  substitute  the  words  “more  spirant  pronun¬ 
ciation”  without  in  any  way  affecting  the  argument.  To  what 
extent  the  greater  conservatism  of  Sanskrit  is  due  to  the  greater 
antiquity  of  the  language  in  our  records  need  not  here  concern 
us :  the  nature  of  the  divergence  between  early  Iranian  and 
Sanskrit  as  we  know  them  is  all  that  will  affect  our  present 
considerations.1 

4.  This  difference  between  the  phonetic  character  of  Iranian 
and  Sanskrit  may  help  us  to  understand  the  differing  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  IE.  palatals  in  the  two  languages.  We  should  first 
have  to  form  a  hypothesis,  however,  as  to  the  character  of  these 
sounds  in  Indo-European,  were  it  not  that  the  opinion  of  Brug- 
mann  (Gr.  I2,  §543  and  K.  Vgl.  Gr.  §157)  has  found  general 
acceptance.  Brugmann’s  view  is  that  the  stop-articulation  of 
these  sounds  is  the  more  original ;  that  they  were  in  Indo-Euro¬ 
pean  slightly  palatalized  ^-sounds  (Jd  k'h  g'  g'h )  which  in  the 
development  of  the  so-called  centum  languages  were  not  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  simple  velar  consonants,  but  in  the  eastern 
(. satom )  languages  became  sibilants.  Phonetic  parallels  are  of 
course  in  favor  of  this  view,  for  the  gradual  change  of  slightly 
palatalized  velars  to  sibilants  is  a  familiar  phenomenon.  A  pala¬ 
talized  velar  Id  g'  is  pronounced  as  a  simple  stop  articulated 
somewhat  farther  forward  in  the  mouth  than  a  plain  velar  (French 

1In  the  above  and  following  paragraphs  theorizing  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
IE.  voiced  aspirate  stops  has  been  avoided, — or  rather,  it  has  been  relegated 
from  here  to  a  note  at  the  end  of  these  remarks. 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


39 


dialects,  Norwegian  dialects,  Lithuanian,  modern  Slavic  languages, 
Magyar).1  Articulation  of  the  middle  tongue  against  the  higher 
parts  of  the  palate  is  not  so  rapid  or  precise  as  in  other  parts  of 
the  mouth.  Especially  as  the  removal  of  the  tongue  after  the 
stop  is  not  so  quick  as  after  a  velar  or  dental,  the  resulting 
acoustic  effect  resembles  an  affricate, — the  stop  being  followed 
by  the  sound  of  the  breath  passing  between  the  palate  and  the 
tongue  (/£' >  k'h>  k'x)>  Cf.  Brugmann  Gr.  I2,  §47,  1.  Mean¬ 
while  the  point  of  articulation  passes  forward,  approaching  that 
of  dental  consonants  (Jd\  >  as  in  Old  French  (ck,  g ), 

English,  Norwegian,  Swedish,  Slavic  languages.  In  some  lan¬ 
guages,  which  tend  to  articulate  either  with  the  back  or  with  the 
tip  of  the  tongue  and  not  with  intermediate  points,  the  palatal 
character  of  t’s\  d'z'  may  be  nearly  or  wholly  given  up,  the 
result  resembling  ts ,  dzy  as  in  Italian  and  English.  Where  the 
palatal  character  is  retained  the  stop  grows  less  and  less  close 
and  is  finally  assimilated  to  the  spirant  :  the  result  is  a  more  or 
less  palatal  s',  s,  or  s  sound,  as  in  modern  French  (c  chyg')y  Italian 
dialects  (S',  s',  cf.  Passy,  Petite  Phon6tique  Compare,  p.  85), 
Portuguese  (£,  g)y  and  modern  Slavic  languages.  As  the  reverse 
of  this  process  is  very  rare — if  indeed  it  be  not  inconceivable, — 
we  must  assume  for  the  IE.  palatals  a  pronunciation  Id  Jd h  gr  g'h. 
From  this  developed  the  sibilants  of  the  satdm  languages. 

5.  The  standard  view  then  supposes  that  in  all  the  so-called 
satdm  languages — and  therefore  in  all  Aryan  and  long  before  any 
distinction  between  Iranian  and  Indie — this  development  had 
uniformly  taken  place  ;  in  other  words,  that  any  and  all  Iranian 
and  Sanskrit  representations  of  the  IE.  palatals  are  later  forms  of 
Ar.  sibilants  sf  srh  z'  z'h  (before  stops  s  z,  before  sibilants  x  ?)• 

This  hypothesis  does  very  well  for  the  facts  of  Iranian,  where 
the  IE.  palatals  are  everywhere  pronounced  as  sibilants,  e.  g., 
Av.  vaso  O.  P.  vasiy  (Gr.  Ua>v)y  Av.  zl-zanat  O.  P.  vispa-  z(a)na - 
(Gr.  ylvos),  Av.  hazah-  (Gr.  fya  Goth,  sigis ), — as  sibilants  even 
in  the  combinations  IE.  ks  gzhy  e.  g.,  Av.  asa-  (Gr.  «£&> v),  Av. 
uz-vazat  (Lat.  vexiT).  We  know,  moreover,  that  these  sibilants 
were  well  on  in  their  development  in  the  Aryan  period,  for  the 
new  palatals  which  in  Aryan  times  developed  from  IE.  velars 
and  labiovelars  before  IE.  front  vowels  did  not  coincide  with  the 

1An  early  stage  is  heard  in  the  German  pronunciation,  e.  g.,  of  Kind  as 
opposed  to  Kalb  and  Kuchen. 


40 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


old  IE.  palatals,  but  remained  as  palatal  stops  or  affricates 
?  j,  as  in  Av.  (lit  O.  P.  tty  (Sk.  cid ),  Av.  jvatti  O.  P .  jlvahy  (Sk. 
jiva-ii).  In  other  words :  before  the  palatalization  in  Aryan 
times  (earlier  than  IE.  e  d  >  a)  of  IE.  velars  and  labiovelars*  the 
IE.  palatals  had  developed  so  far  that  the  new  palatals  never 
coincided  with  them — never  “  caught  up  ”  with  them  : — the  IE. 
palatals  had,  we  may  safely  say,  developed  into  sibilants. 

This,  the  standard  view,  is  further  supported  when  we  consider 
the  characteristics  of  Iranian  mentioned  in  §§  1-3.  Strong  breath 
stress  (or  at  any  rate  spirant  tendency)  in  pronouncing  k'  g' 
makes  the  spirant  glide  more  noticeable  than  otherwise,  so  that 
the  affricate  stage  is  more  quickly  reached  than  where  the  breath 
stress  is  weaker.  Strong  breath  stress  (especially  if  combined 
with  loose  tongue  articulation)  hastens  the  weakening  of  the 
stop  element  and  its  assimilation  to  the  spirant  element.  Iran. 
s  2  were  somewhat  palatal  sibilants,  cf.  such  spellings  (or 
dialectic  forms)  as  O.  P.  a-6ahah  (Av.  savha  te  Sk.  s'qsa-ti), 
a-yadana-  (Av.  yazaite  Sk.  yd^a-te).  The  development  of  IE. 
ks  gzh  from  k'sg'zh  through  more  and  more  relaxed  and  spirant 
articulations  to  s  z  is  also  natural ;  it  is  of  little  moment  whether 
or  not  we  assume  an  intermediate  stage  -gs  yz  :  some  such  thing 
there  must  have  been. 

6.  When  we  come  to  the  Sanskrit,  however,  we  find  the  condi¬ 
tions — as  indeed  we  might  expect  them — quite  different.  IE.  k 
before  vowels,  semivowels,  nasals,  and  r  has,  to  be  sure,  gone 
through  the  development  to  the  palatal  sibilant  s'  as  in  vas'mi 
(Gr.  Uvv)  ;  note  especially  the  conversion  of  s  before  Sk.  palatals 
to  the  same  sound  as  in  idtas'  ca. 

Aside  from  this  case  (and  one  other),  however,  the  facts  differ 
greatly  from  those  of  Iranian.  To  begin  with,  IE.  g  before 
vowels,  semivowels,  etc.,  has  in  early  Sanskrit  times  the  pro¬ 
nunciation  of  a  simple  voiced  palatal  stop  g'  or  better  d'  (written 
j  as  in  j  an  as-),  coinciding  with  the  d '  developed  in  Aryan  from 
IE.  velars  and  labiovelars  before  IE.  front  vowels  (as  in  jiva-ti). 
As  to  the  character  of  this  sound  in  early  times,  cf.  Whitney,  1.  c., 
§  44,  a  and  especially  Brugmann,  K.  Vgl.  Gr.,  §  22,  4,  with  refer¬ 
ences.  As  was  inevitable,  this  sound  came  to  assume  a  spirant 
glide  (cf.  §4),  but  in  classical  times  it  never  acquired  the  metrical 
value  of  a  double  consonant  and  was  never  considered  otherwise 
than  as  a  simple  voiced  stop.  According  to  the  standard  view, 
now,  this  palatal  stop  is  a  development  from  an  Ar.  sibilant  z' — a 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


41 


reversion,  as  it  were,  to  an  older  state  :  IE.  g  (=  g')  >  Ar.  z'  > 
Sk.  j  — qf.  for  instance  Brugmann,  Gr.  I2,  §62,  Anm.  2. 

Phonetically  this  is  of  course  most  unlikely, — just  as  it  is  unlikely 
that  the  /^-sounds  of  the  centum  languages  are  derived  from 
sibilants  like  those  of  the  satzm  languages,  cf.  §  4. 

The  same  holds  true  of  the  IE.  palatal  voiced  aspirate :  in 
Sanskrit  IE.  gh  and  Ar.  g'h  (<  IE.  gh  g^h  before  front  vowels) 
are  represented  alike  as  h ,  e.  g.  sdhas-  (Av.  hazah-  Goth,  sigis ) 
and  hdn-ti  (Av.  jainti  Gr.  <9eiV«).  Here,  indeed,  it  might  be 
urged  that  the  representation  in  Sanskrit  of  IE.  gk>  Ar.  z' h  had 
not  “  reverted  ”  so  as  to  coincide  with  that  of  Ar.  g'h ,  but  that 
the  two  sounds  never  had  coincided  until  they  both  became  h ; — 
in  other  words,  that  IE.  gh  >  Ar.  z'h'y  Sk.  h  and  that  Ar.  g'h> 
Sk.  k.  Unfortunately  for  the  current  view  of  this  matter  there  is 
an  obstacle  to  this  assumption:  the  Sanskrit  law  of  deaspiration, 
when  operating  on  IE.  gh  leaves  the  usual  representation  of 
IE.  g,  namely  j  (=  d ')  as  in  jdv>gha  (<IE.  *gheidgha}  Goth. 
gdggs).  Hence  the  current  view  of  this  subject  is  forced  to 
assume  that  here  too  the  Ar.  sibilant  z'  h  acquired  stop  value  in 
Sanskrit,  that  IE.  gh  ( =  g'h )  >  Ar.  z' h  >  Sk.  *jh  (=  d' hi)  > 
Sk.  h  or  j  d').  Moreover  this  return  of  the  sibilant  to  stop 
value  must  have  been  very  early,  since  Sanskrit  deaspiration 
took  place  before  the  change  of  zh  to  s,  s>  cf.  Brugmann,  Gr.  I2, 
§827. 

/■s 

Finally  there  are  a  few  cases  of  IE.  sk(h ),  where  we  find  these 
sounds  represented  by  Sk.  ( c)ch ,  as  in  chindt-ti  (Gr.  ax'C^y 
ducchuna  ( du  |  +  $'  una).  This  (c)ch  makes  the  preceding  vowel 
“  long  by  position”  (Whitney,  1.  c.,  §§  44,  a.  227)  ;  it  is  also  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  combination  of  -t  s'-  as  in  tac  chakyam  ( tat  4- 
s'akyam)  :  hence  its  character  as  a  double  sound,  namely  as  a 
palatal  affricate  ( t's ')  is  plain.  Note  also  the  phonetic  spelling 
cs'.  Here  again  the  standard  view  is  forced  to  suppose  that  IE. 
sk(h)  (=  sk'(h)  )  >  Ar.  s's'(h)  >  Sk.  (c)ch  (=  t's') — again  a  devel¬ 
opment  contrary  to  the  usual  course  of  such  sounds  and  to  the 
course  which  such  sounds  had  previously  taken  in  the  same 
language. 

7.  The  current  supposition,  in  short,  is  that  the  IE.  palatals 
developed  uniformly  over  the  entire  Aryan  territory :  that  their 
spirantization  and  stop-loosening  was  as  fast  in  the  otherwise 
“conservative”  Sanskrit  territory  as  in  the  Iranian  with  its 
spirant  tendency  ;  that  when  Sanskrit  and  Iranian  grew  to  be 


42 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY . 


separate  languages  the  former  as  well  as  the  latter  pronounced 
the  IE.  palatals  as  sibilants  s'  s'k  z'  z!  h.  The  Sanskrit,  however, — 
repenting  the  precipitate  course  it  had  taken  in  company  with  the 
Iranian, — changed  s's'(h )  (<  IE.  sk(Ji)  )  back  to  ( c)ch  (=  t's''), 
z!  back  to  j  (=  d! ),  and  z' h  back  to  jh  (=  d'h>  later  d'  or  h), 
leaving  only  s'  at  the  end  of  the  alphabet  as  a  spirant, — a  last 
trace  of  the  bad  company  and  profligate  habits  of  the  past. 

If  we  examine  the  actual  forms  of  the  Sanskrit  language,  how¬ 
ever,  we  find  nothing  anomalous  ;  and  if,  in  tracing  the  origin  of 
these  forms  and  in  comparing  them  to  Iranian  forms,  we  keep  in 
mind  the  physiologic  aspect  of  the  process  of  palatalization  (out¬ 
lined  in  §4)  and  apply  what  we  know  about  the  difference 
between  Iranian  and  Sanskrit  treatment  of  consonants  (cf.  §§  1-3), 
we  shall  probably  find  in  the  history  of  the  IE.  palatals  in  San¬ 
skrit  nothing  unusual  or  surprising.  Beginning  with  the  Indo- 
European,  we  shall  now  try  to  reconstruct  this  history. 

8.  The  IE.  palatals  k  kh  g  gh  (probably  pronounced  k  k  h 
g'  g' hy  cf.  §  4)  seem  to  have  gone  rapidly  along  the  course  of 
palatalization  in  one  part  of  the  Aryan  territory  (in  which  other¬ 
wise  also  spirant  tendency  later  appears),  namely  in  that  dialect 
which  later  became  the  Iranian  language ;  for,  when  the  Ar. 
velars  (<  IE.  velars  and  labiovelars)  became  palatal  before  front 
vowels,  these  new  palatals  were  in  this  dialect  distinct  from  the 
old  palatals.1  At  the  end  of  the  Aryan  period  then,  the  Iranian 
started  out  with  one  set  of  more  or  less  purely  spirant  palatal 
sounds,  say  s'  s'h  zf  z'h,  and  one  set  of  (new)  palatal  stops  k'  k'h 
g'  g'h. 

The  further  history  of  the  palatals  in  Iranian  is  clear  (cf.  §  5). 
The  old  palatals,  if  not  already  pronounced  as  sibilants  soon 
reached  this  pronunciation.  Examples  are: 

/*V 

(a)  Av.  s  (<  IE.  k) :  vasd  O.  P.  vasiy  (Gr.  €K<I>v). 

(<  IE.  sk )  :  jasaiti  (Gr.  fid(TK€). 

(<  IE.  skK) :  hi-sihyat  (Gr.  <r ^tf«). 

(<  IE.  ksk )  :  p?r9saUi  (<  IE  *  prk-ske-ti). 

(b)  Av.  2  (<  IE.  g)  :  2l-2anat  O.  P.  vispa~z{a)na - 

(Gr.  ye vos ). 

(<  IE.  gh) :  hazah-  (Gr.  ex «  Goth,  sigis'). 

(<  IE.  zgk) :  GAv.  zae-md  (Gr.  axoi/iev). 

1  This  is  much  like  the  state  of  things  in  the  Slavic  languages,  e.  g.  modern 
Russian,  where  several  degrees  of  palatalization  coexist. 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


43 


(c)  Av.  s  ( <  IE.  ks) :  asa-  (Gr.  v). 

(<  IE.  :  siii-s  (Gr.  xnW). 

(<  IE.  2]?^)  :  (Gr.  cpex$<o). 

(<  IE.  £-/)  :  zwS#  (Gr.  Uwv). 

(<  IE.  £-y) :  saskus-ipmd  (<  IE.*  %e-  kq -) 

(d)  Av.  £  (<  IE.  :  uz-vazat  (Lat.  vexit). 

(<  IE.  g-d):  mdr9zdikdm  (<  IE.*  mrg-d-). 

(<  IE.  g-dh)  :  vazdri-s  (<  IE.*  uegh-'). 

(<  IE.  g-b/i)  :  GAv.  vlzibyo  (dat.  abl.  pi.  of 

v 

The  new  palatals  became  d  and  /,  probably  palatal  affricates, 
except  in  positions  where  stops  became  spirant  (cf.  §  2).  In  such 
positions  s  and  z  were  spoken  :  the  coincidence  under  these  con¬ 
ditions  with  certain  representations  of  the  old  palatals,  (c)  and 
(d)  above,  affords  the  best  possible  example  of  the  connection 
between  spirantizing  tendencies  and  tendencies  which  accelerate 
palatalization.  Examples: 

(e)  Av.  ^(<  Ar.  k ')  :  cit  O.  P.  diy  (Gr.  A). 

(f)  Av.y  (<  Ar.  g') :  jvarti  O.  P .  jlvdhy  (Gr.  S/aira). 

(<  Ar.  gfh ) :  jainti  O.  P.  a-janam  (Gr.  OeLvco). 

(c)  Av.  s  (<  Ar.  k ')  :  GAv.  vasyeie  (Gr.  ?7T  Of). 

(d)  Av.  s  (<  Ar.  £•'):  dazcdii  (Goth,  dags ,  Lith.  degu). 

(<  Ar.  £-'/#)  :  snaezaHi  (Gr. 

9.  In  that  dialect  of  Aryan  which  later  became  the  Indie  lan¬ 
guage  the  spirantizing  tendency  of  usual  speech  was  less  than  in 
the  sister  dialect.  Consequently  palatalization  proceeded  much 
less  rapidly. 

In  the  utterance  of  unvoiced  sounds,  where  the  glottis  is  open, 
more  breath  is  passed  through  the  mouth  than  in  the  utterance 
of  voiced  sounds.1 2  Unvoiced  palatal  stops,  therefore,  are  more 
susceptible  to  affrication  and  spirantization  than  voiced  stops. 
In  a  language  where  the  breath  stress  is  at  all  strong — strong 
enough  to  develop  even  a  voiced  palatal  with  some  rapidity — 
this  difference  does  not  show  itself;  in  the  early  history  of  San¬ 
skrit,  however,  we  must  ascribe  to  it  the  more  rapid  develop- 

/—s  /-N 

ment  of  IE.  k  (kli)  as  compared  to  g  ghd 

1  Cf.  the  candle  experiment  cited  in  §  2. 

2  Similarly  perhaps  F.  del  (<  Lat.  caelum ),  but  gendre  (<  Lat.  gener ),  with  s 
and  z.  French  breath  stress  is  decidedly  weak. 


44 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


As  a  consequence  of  this  more  rapid  development  of  IE.  k  it 
came  about  that  when  the  new  Aryan  palatals  developed  from 
velars  before  front  vowels,  the  IE.  unvoiced  k  was  already  well 
along  toward  spirantization,  but  the  IE.  voiced  palatals  g  gh 
were  still  stops  and  accordingly  coincided  with  the  new  voiced 
palatal  stops  Ar.  g'  g'h. 

In  the  combinations  IE.  sk  and  skh  the  IE.  palatal  did  not 
develop  so  rapidly  as  in  independent  k  because  the  preceding  5 
here  lessened  the  breath  stress  for  the  following  k  kh ,  cf.  §  2.  The 
s  was  assimilated  to  the  following  palatal,  becoming  a  palatal 
sibilant, — cf.  the  similar  change  later  in  Sanskrit,  as  in  t aids’  ca 
from  tatas  +  ca.  Thus  IE.  sk! (K)  (=sk'(/i))  became  sk' h> 
s'k'x  >  ki's’  which  was  then  simplified  to  t's' 1 — written  (c)ch  and 
pronounced  as  a  prolonged  t’  plus  decided  spirant  glide,  cf.  tac 
chakyam  in  later  times  from  tat  4-  s'akyam  (§  6),  but  tac  ca  pro¬ 
nounced  tat’ -f  a  (with  much  slighter  glide)  and  written  without 
the  h,  from  tat  4-  ca — the  c  in  ca  being  i’  with  a  slight  glide.  IE. 
sk  also  occurs  in  the  compounds  ducchuna  ( dus  4-  s'und)  and 
parucchepa  ( parus  4-  s'epa). — IE.  ksk  either  became  sk  as  in 
Latin  posco  (Brugmann,  Gr.  I2,  §707,  Anm.) ;  or,  if  this  change 
is  not  to  be  assumed  for  Aryan,  it  became  kk  where  the  length¬ 
ened  tongue  pressure  incident  to  articulation  of  a  double  stop 
preserved  the  stop  value,  giving  Sk.  t's',  (  ( c)ch  ),  cf.  below. 

What  has  been  said  in  the  last  three  paragraphs  applies  to  the 
IE.  palatals  before  vowels,  semivowels,  nasals,  and  r.  In  these 
positions,  then,  Sanskrit  possessed  at  the  end  of  the  Aryan 
period  the  following  sounds:  unvoiced  :  s',  t's',  k  (Ar.  palatal)  ; 
voiced  :  g'  (IE.  palatal  and  Ar.  palatal),  g’h  (IE.  palatal  and  Ar. 
palatal),  g'g'  (Ar.  palatal,  from  older  zg'P 

These  sounds  suffered  little  change  in  Sanskrit.  In  historic 
times  s'  had  reached  palatal  sibilant  pronunciation,  t's'  written 
(c)ck  was  a  palatal  affricate :  both  t's'  as  well  as  k  g'  g'h  g'g' 
were  spoken  with  the  front  rather  than  the  middle  of  the  tongue  ; 
the  latter  set  of  sounds  early  added  a  spirant  glide,  and  were 
later  different  from  the  dentals  scarcely  in  any  respect  but  this. 
We  write  f  (Sk.  c),  d'  (Sk ./),  d'h  (Sk.  *jh  >/,  h ),  d' d’  (Sk.  jjf). 
As  for  his  last  sound  :  it  in  no  case  represents  an  IE.  palatal, 

1  For  an  analogous  simplification,  cf.  prim.  Slavic  sts'  >  Slov.  and  Russ,  t's' 

(as  in  sveca),  Brugmann,  Gr.  1 2,  §  316,  Anm.  2.  Cf.  also  Sk.  vrksi  <  *vrsksi, 

s'iksa-ti  <  *yisksa-ti. 

•  •  • 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


45 


but  always  Ar.  zgr ,  which  developed  like  IE.  sk,  except  that  in 
the  voiced  sound  the  final  spirant  glide  was  less  noticeable. 
Hence  the  parallelism  of  Ar.  zg'  >  Sk.  d'd'  with  Sk.  cc  rather 
than  ( c)ch .  Cf.  also  taj  jal am  for  tad  +  jalam.  Where  d'h  was 
not  deaspirated  the  voiced  stop  element  was  lost,  leaving  voiced 
h }  Thus,  in  the  positions  named,  the  Sanskrit  spoke: 

(a)  Sk.  s'(  <  IE.  k) :  vds'tfii  (Gr.  €KMv). 

(b)  Sk.  (c)ch  (pr.  t's',  <  IE.  sk) :  gdccha-ti  (Gr.  /3 do-**). 

(  <  IE.  skh)  :  chindt-ti  (Gr. 

(  <  IE.  %sk) :  prcchd-ti  (  <  IE.  *prk-ske~ti). 

(c)  Sk .j  (pr.  d'}  <  IE.  g)  :  jdnas-  (Gr.  ye vos). 

(  <  IE.  gh)  :  jdngha,  (Goth,  gaggs ). 

(  <  Ar.  g') :  jiva-ti  (Gr.  8/aira). 

(  <  Ar.  g'/i)  :  ja-ghdna  (Gr.  6Ava,  recfivov). 

(d)  Sk.  h  (voiced  sound,  <  IE.  gK)  :  sdhas-  (Gr. 

Goth,  sigis). 

(  <  Ar.  g'k) :  han-ti  (Gr.  6Av<c). 

(e)  Sk.  c  (pr.  <  Ar.  k')  :  ci-d  (Gr.  rt). 

(f)  Sk.yy  (pr.  d'd <  Ar.  zgr)  :  mdjja-ti  (Lith.  mazgdti). 

io.  Before  sibilants  the  IE.  palatals  k  g  appear  in  Sanskrit  as 
k.  Even  here  lE.k  g  must  in  Aryan  times  have  possessed  some 
palatalization,  though  much  less  than  in  the  same  combination  in 
the  Iranian  part  of  the  territory.  We  may  suppose  that  IE.  ks 
was  in  pre-Indic  k's.  Whatever  spirant  glide  may  have  followed 
k  was  of  course  lost  in  the  sound  of  the  s :  as  the  palatalization  of 
the  k'  was  thus  scarcely  noticeable,  the  combination  was  finally 
pronounced  ks,  coinciding  with  ks  <  IE.  qs,  qus. 

The  combination  IE.  gzh  is  also  found  in  Sanskrit  as  ks.  Now 
voiced  sibilants  (except  for  the  sibilant  glide  of  dr  or  d'd')  were 
not  pronounced  in  Sanskrit,  but  were  lost.  We  may  suppose 
that  the  Sanskrit  breath  stress  was  too  weak  to  enounce  a  sibi¬ 
lant  with  closed  glottis — of  this  more  below.  In  Sanskrit  pro¬ 
nunciation,  then,  zh  would  have  been  lost.  We  must  therefore 
ascribe  the  change  of  IE.  zh  to  s  to  a  pre-Sanskrit  stage — per¬ 
haps  to  a  dialectic  change  in  the  Aryan  period.  In  this,  Sanskrit 
resembles  Celtic  and  Germanic,  in  which  also  the  normal  pro¬ 
cesses  of  the  language  acted  on  a  basis  of  pre-Celt,  and  pre-Germ. 

1  This  pronunciation  will  be  spoken  of  in  the  note  on  the  IE.  sonant 
aspirates. 


46 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


ks  ts  ps  and  not  gzh  dzh  bzh  (cf.  Brugmann,  Gr.  1 2,  §§  766,  2. 
796,  b.  827).  It  is  worth  noting  also  that  the  Iranian  alone  has 
preserved  the  combinations  in  question  as  voiced  sounds.  In 
Sanskrit,  then,  IE.  gzh>k's  (for  “aspiration”  attached  to  a 
voiceless  s  sound  means  nothing)  >ks.  Examples  : 

(g)  Sk.  ks  (<  IE.  ks)  :  dksa-s  (Gr.  a£  0  v). 

( <C  IE.  k\>) :  ksiti-s  (Gr.  kt  i  o- 1  ?). 

(  <  IE.  k\h)  :  raksas-  Gr.  e  p  <  x  6  <*>)• 

(<  IE.  gzh):  a-vak'sit  (Lat.  vexit). 

(<  IE.  gdh):  ksam-  (Gr.  ^6oav). 

11.  The  statements  in  the  preceding  §  do  not  apply  to  IE. 
k  g  +  sibilant  before  stops  (i.  e.  before  t  d,  as  no  other  case  seems 
to  occur).  In  this  position  IE.  ks  gz  did  not  become  Sk.  ks 
because  the  s  z  dropped  out  before  the  preceding  IE.  palatals 
had  lost  their  palatal  value.  Thus  IE.  kst  >  Ar.  k'st  >  k't  and 
IE.  gzd  >  Ar.  g'zd  >  g'd.  Cf.,  for  the  law  of  dropping  sibilants 
between  stops  in  Sanskrit,  Brugmann,  Gr.  I2,  §828  (who,  how¬ 
ever,  does  not  draw  the  necessary  conclusions  about  the  cases 
involving  IE.  palatals).  This  process  is  decidedly  natural  for  a 
language  with  weak  breath  stress,  where  a  sibilant  between  stops 
is  at  best  weakly  pronounced.  In  the  case  of  the  voiced  combi¬ 
nation  we  need  only  remember  that  the  Sanskrit  nowhere  pro¬ 
nounced  a  voiced  sibilant.  The  early  date  of  this  law  appears  in 
the  treatment  of  raps' d-ie  <  *raxp-ske- :  here  the  s  dropped  out 

A 

before  the  general  pronunciation  of  k  and  its  pronunciation  in  the 

A 

combination  sk  had  diverged  :  i.  e.  before  the  former  had  lost  its 
stop  value. 

The  word  prcchd-ti  (§  9)  may  also  be  an  illustration  of  this  law, 
unless,  like  Lat .posco,  we  suppose  it  earlier  to  have  dropped  the 
first  k. 

12.  To  return  to  Sk.  ks.  When  Sanskrit  reduced  its  final 
consonant  groups  to  simple  consonants,  final  -ks  had  to  become  -k. 

It  is  natural,  however,  that  during  the  operation  of  the  law 
spoken  of  in  §  11  even  final  IE.  -ks  was  affected  when  it  came 
before  stops.  Thus  *rdk's  iatra  was  spoken  *rak ’  tatra.  Such 
forms  as  *rak survived  and  wrere  spoken  alongside  the  forms  in 
-k  <  -ks,  competing  with  them,  as  we  shall  see,  at  some  advantage. 

In  historic  times  forms  with  final  -k  <  IE.  palatal  were  used  as 
follows, - k I  having  everywhere  else  superseded  -k  : — exclu- 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


47 


sively  in  the  roots  and  root-stems  dis'-,  drs'-,  sprs'-,  rvj -,1  dik-;2 
in  the  stems  urj -,s  bhisdj -,4  r/z/f/- ; 5  optionally  in"’ the  root  nasr 
‘  attain  ’.6 

Sporadic  instances  of  forms  with  final  - k ,  where  has  gener¬ 
ally  been  adopted,  are  the  following  :  (RV. :)  a?idk  (stem  andks-, 
cf.  nds'  a-ti ),  dmyak  (root  myaks -,  cf.  mis'rd-s )  ;  (Vedic:)  pran- 
adhrk  dadhrk  (root  drhh-,  cf.  Av.  dar3zayeUi,  Uhlenbeck,  1.  c., 
s.  v.  drhyati ),  purusprk  (root  sprh -,  cf.  Av.  spar>z-,  Uhlenbeck, 
1.  c.,  s.  v.  sprhayati)  ;  (Mditrdyani-Sqhita :)  vis'vasrk  (root  jr/-, 
cf.  Av.  h?rdzaUi,  Uhlenbeck,  1.  c.,  s.  v.  srjdti).  Here  belong 
finally  the  Vedic  ^-aorist  forms  asrak  (root  sr/-)  and  adrdk  (root 
drs when  used  as  2d  person  sg. 

As  for  the  competing  forms  with  -Id ,  they  will  be  spoken  of 
below. 

13.  At  the  time  of  the  simplification  of  final  consonant  groups 
final  -k't  (either  <  IE.  - kt  or  .<  IE.  -ksi  by  the  law  in  §11) 
became  -k .  Thus  IE.  -kt  and  -kst  always  gave  -Jd  and  IE.  -ks 
sometimes  gave  -Jd ,  sometimes  - k . 

14.  At  the  time  of  the  simplification  of  final  consonant  groups 
IE.  k  g  before  stops  were  still  uniformly  palatal  stops  Id  gr. 
Breath  stress  in  Sanskrit,  we  may  suppose,  was  too  weak  for  the 
formation  of  a  spirant  or  sibilant  glide  between  stops — cf.  the 
earlier  dropping  of  s  between  stops,  §11. 

After  the  time  of  the  simplification  of  final  consonant  groups, 

/*S 

however,  IE.  k  g  before  t  d}  dh  lost  their  stop  articulation. 
Concretely  expressed :  the  tongue,  instead  of  passing  from  a 
vowel  position  (1)  upward  to  form  a  palatal  stop  (2)  and  then 

1  The  final  of  ruj-  is  not  treated  in  Sanskrit  as  an  IE.  palatal,  but,  wherever 
the  treatment  of  the  two  would  necessarily  differ,  as  an  Ar.  velar.  Historic¬ 
ally,  however,  the  final  of  ruj-  is  probably  an  IE.  palatal,  cf.  Lith.  liiszli , 
Iduzyti ,  Russ.  luznut\  mentioned  by  Uhlenbeck,  Et.  Wb.  d.  Ai.  Spr.,  s.  v. 
rujdti . 

2  The  final  of  dih-  is  not  treated  in  Sanskrit  as  an  IE.  palatal ;  but  cf. 
Brugmann,  Gr.  I  2,  §  597,  1. 

3  The  final  of  drj-  is  not  treated  in  Sanskrit  as  an  IE.  palatal  ;  historically 
it  is  considered  such  by  Brugmann,  Gr.  1 2,  §  608. 

4  The  final  of  bhisdj-  is  not  treated  in  Sanskrit  as  an  IE.  palatal;  historic¬ 
ally  it  falls  into  this  class,  cf.  Brugmann,  Gr.  I2,  §  597,  1. 

5  The  final  of  rtvtj-  is  not  treated  in  Sanskrit  as  an  IE.  palatal;  the  deriva¬ 
tion  of  the  word  from  the  root  yaj-  shows  the  Sanskrit  treatment  to  be  un- 
historic. 

6  On  the  rationale  of  generalized  ^-forms,  cf.  Meillet,  IF.  18,  418. 


48 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


(while  loosening  this)  forming  with  the  tip  a  dental  stop  (3), 
took,  without  change  of  breath  or  time  used,  a  simpler  course. 
We  must  remember  in  this  connection  that  (as  we  had  occasion 
to  note  in  §9)  later,  in  historic  times  Sanskrit  had  no  strictly 
palatal  stops  corresponding  to  Jd  or  g' ,  but  pronounced  its  “  pala¬ 
tals  ”  with  the  blade  rather  than  the  middle  of  the  tongue.  So 
here,  the  tongue,  instead  of  forming  (2)  passed  more  directly 
from  (1)  to  (3),  only  approximating  (2)  in  a  position  (2a).  This 
approximation  (2a)  produced  in  the  voiceless  group  a  sibilant 
sound,  s  or  s.  In  the  utterance  of  the  voiced  group,  however, 
there  was  not  breath  enough  passing  through  the  mouth  to  make 
(2a)  audible  as  a  spirant  or  sibilant — (the  Sanskrit  could  not 
pronounce  a  voiced  sibilant)  : — (2a)  formed  simply  a  prolonga¬ 
tion  of  the  vowel  (“compensatory  lengthening  ” ).'  In  these 
cases  the  dentals  (3)  were  pronounced  farther  back  in  the  mouth 
than  usual,  becoming  (as  the  Sanskrit  made  this  distinction) 
“  linguals  ”,  not  dentals.  That  is  :  -itita-  >  -ista-  but  -ig' da-  > 

*..[?]•.  •  4a~  >  -ida-.  The  change  of  a  >  0  before  dropped 
g  is  similar  to  that  before  dropped  Ar.  h  in  sadhi,  as  in  yo  d&me 
<  Ar.  *yah  dam -  (instead  of  phonetic  *yaz  d-).  In  both  cases 
the  0  is  due  to  the  quality  of  ah  and  a  -f-  spirant-position.  The 
change  to  e  instead  of  0  in  a-mredayati  trnedhi  is  probably  due  to 
the  preceding  r  (rn)  sound  :  here  a  had  a  value  nearer  e,  as  also 
before  Ar.  z ,  cf.  Sk.  sedya-t  (Av.  kazdyd-t).  Cf.  Brugmann, 
Gr.  I2,  §§830,  8,  a.  1005,  5. 

/-s 

A  possible  case  of  IE.  kq  later  k k  shows  the  same  treatment 
oiJd  as  before  dental,  namely  s'iksa-ti  <  *sr  isksa-ti  <  *ki-kq-se-\ 
cf.  above,  footnote;  Brugmann,  Gr.  I2,  §§615,  2.  829,  Anm.  1  ; 
Whitney,  1.  c.,  §§  1030,  a.  1040. 

Examples  of  the  above  change  : 

(h)  Sk.  st  (<  IE.  kt):  vdsti  (Gr.  Ua>v). 

(<  IE.  kst)  :  caste  (<  IE.  *q%eks-'). 

(i )  Sk.  —  d  ( <  IE.  gd) :  mrdlkd-m  {r  long  in  RV., 

<  IE.  * mr-gd -). 

(<  IE.  gzd )  :  sddas'a  (<IE.  -gz-de-). 

'As  to  the  inability  of  the  Sanskrit  to  pronounce  voiced  sibilants,  cf., 
aside  from  the  historic  state  of  the  language,  the  treatment  of  IE.  z  (about 
which  some  comment  will  be  made  below),  and  the  retention  of  the  sibilant 
in  Ar.  sk *  (Sk.  vrs'cdti),  but  not  in  Ar.  zg*  (Sk.  majjati). 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


49 


(j  )  Sk.  — dh  (<  IE.  gdh) :  udhd-s  (<  IE.  *uegh  +  io-). 

(<  IE.  gzdJi)  :  sodha  (<  IE.  *-gz-dh-). 

15.  In  the  position  before  dentals  the  IE.  palatals  have  thus 
coincided  in  Sanskrit  with  Ar.  J  2  (<  IE.  s  z  after  1,  u,  r,  r ),  as 
in  tistha-ii  and  mldhd-m  (Av.  mizdz-ni). 

16.  We  have  now  considered  the  development  of  the  IE. 
palatals  in  the  following  positions  : 

(1)  before  vowels,  semivowels,  nasals,  and  r,  to  s’  j  h  ic)ch{%  9); 

(2)  before  preserved  sibilants,  to  k ,  giving  ks  (§  10)  ; 

(2a)  final  -ks  becoming  -k  (§  12), 

(2b)  or,  before  initial  stops,  -k’  (§§  11,  12)  ; 

(3)  before  dental  stops  (or  sibilants  +  dental  stops),  \.o>  k'  g' , 
giving  k’tg’d(h)  (§11); 

(3a)  final  - Jdt  becoming  -Id  (§§  11,  13), 

(3b)  kt  and  g' d{Ji)  otherwise  becoming  st  and  — d(h) 
(§  14)- 

(4)  before  velars  the  treatment  of  palatals  was  probably  the 
same  as  before  dentals  (§  14). 

17.  Before  labial  stops,  where  palatals  were  followed  by  closure 
of  the  lips,  inaction  of  the  tongue,  and  stoppage  of  the  breath 
current,  these  sounds  suffered  no  change,  but  remained  as  Id  gf, 
the  former  coinciding  with  the  -k!  of  §  12  and  of  §  13.  Hence  we 
may  say  that  in  all  these  cases  the  Sanskrit  retained  the  IE. 
palatals  until  a  late  prehistoric  time  at  a  stage  which,  so  far,  we 
have  represented  by  Jd  g’ — meaning  thereby  to  indicate  stopped 
consonants  articulated  with  the  “middle  part”  of  the  tongue 
(. Zuyigenriicken )  against  a  point  of  the  palate  forward  of  the  k  g 

(  point,  and  pronounced  without  spirant  vanish.1 

1  By  this  time,  needless  to  say,  Sk.  c  and  j  from  whatever  source  had  become 
t'  d\ — stops  with  a  spiran  glide,  formed  very  near  the  “dental”  points  of 
tongue  and  palate. 

In  historic  Sanskrit  these  )d  g'  sounds  are  uniformly  repre¬ 
sented  by  the  so-called  “cerebrals”  or  “  linguals  ”  written  t  d. 
Whitney,  1.  c.,  §45,  says:  “The  lingual  mutes  are  by  all  native 
authorities  defined  as  uttered  with  the  tip  of  the  tongue  turned  up 
and  drawn  back  into  the  dome  of  the  palate  (somewhat  as  the 
usual  English  smooth  r  is  pronounced  ”).  They  are  (§  46) 
“  perhaps  derived  from  the  aboriginal  languages  of  India”. 


♦ 


4 


50 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


We  have  here  most  probably  a  case  of  sound  substitution.  It 
is  easy  to  see  how  a  people  unaccustomed  to  hearing  correctly 
or  articulating  sounds  formed  with  the  middle  tongue  against  the 
dome  of  the  palate,  would  substitute  “  linguals  ”  for  these  sounds. 
The  difference  in  the  place  of  articulation  would  be  slight  if  any  ; 
the  change  would  be  only  in  the  manner :  instead  of  bringing  the 
dorsal  surface  of  the  tongue  against  the  palate,  the  Hindu  articu¬ 
lated  with  the  tip.  Examples  : 

(k)  Sk.  t  (<  IE.  /?)  :  vit-pdti-s  (historic  form,  beside 

vis'-pdti-s). 

(<  IE.  - ks )  :  rat  tatra  (<  *reks  t-). 

(<  IE.  -kst)  :  avdt  (  =  a-vakslt  Lat.  vexit , 

formed  without  the  connecting  i). 

(<  IE.  kt)\  anat  (root  nas'-  +  t ). 

(l )  Sk.  d  (<  IE.  g)  vidbhyds  (dat.  abl.  pi.  of  vis'-,  GAv. 

vizi  by  o). 

1 8.  The  occurrence  of  t  d  for  older  k’  gr  (<  k  g)  is  strictly 
phonetic,  then,  (i)  before  labials  (2)  finally  where  a  following  -t 
or  -si  have  been  dropped,  and  (3)  finally  where  a  following  -s  has 
been  dropped  before  initial  stops.  Accordingly  we  should  inflect 
as  follows,  e.  g.,  the  noun  stem  vis  -  (IE.  ink-  Av.  vis-)  : 

Nom.  sg.  vit  (before  stops,  otherwise  :)  *vik, 
loc.  pi.  viksil , 

bh-  cases  vidbhyam,  vidbhis,  vidbhyds , 
other  cases  vis' am,  vis’ a,  vis'i ,  etc. 

Most  noun  stems  ending  in  IE.  palatals  differ  from  vis'-  in 
forming  the  loc.  pi.  with  analogic  t  for  k ,  e.  g.,  -litsu  from  - lih -. 
In  the  later  language  vitsu  is  the  loc.  pi.  of  vis'- ;  the  long 
survival  of  the  phonetic  viksu  being  due  probably  to  frequency 
of  use.  The  complete  victory  of  -t  over  -k  in  the  nom.  sg.  is  due 
mostly  to  the  analogy  of  the  bh- cases,  though  the  occurrence  of 
-t  before  initial  stops  no  doubt  gave  the  start.  A  few  isolated 
and  rare  -k  forms  are  quoted  in  §12,  end:  these  sporadic  sur¬ 
vivals  in  the  literature  may  well  be  the  reflex  of  a  usage  common 
in  the  spoken  language.  The  forms  sdt  and  satsd  of  the  numeral 
sa(h)s-  also  show  victory  of  the  - 1  form. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  nouns  named  in  §  12  as  having  - k  in 
the  nom.  sg.  have  extended  this  sound  to  exclusive  use.  They 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


51 


also  have  retained,  like  vis'-,  the  fc-form  in  the  loc.  pi.  On  the 
basis  of  these  two  forms  they  have  then  substituted  velar  forms 
for  the  d  of  the  M-cases,  e.  g.  drgblns.  In  the  case  of  the  radical 
noun  from  the  root  ruj-  and  of  the  other  nouns  in  -j  (<  IE.  g) 
mentioned  in  §  12,  this  process  left  no  distinction  between  these 
nouns  and  the  nouns  in  -j  (<  IE.  g,  gyp) — whose  influence  of 
course  came  into  play  in  all  these  cases. 

In  verb  forms  the  peculiar  combinations  made  by  IE.  palatals 
plus  dental  endings  have  helped  to  keep  the  roots  in  IE.  palatals 
distinct.  The  roots  ruj-  and  dih however,  which  are  treated  as 
if  their  finals  represented  IE.  velars  or  labiovelars,  are  probably 
the  victims  of  analogic  transference,  cf.  the  notes  in  §  12.  On  the 
other  hand  the  root  bhrajj-  is  treated  (in  its  few  forms,  e.  g.,  pple. 
bhrstd-s)  as  if  its  final  were  an  IE.  palatal ;  its  cognates  however 
show  plainly  that  its  final  is  not  of  this  class :  e.  g.,  CS1.  obruzg - 
nqii,  cf.  Uhlenbeck,  1.  c.,  s.  v.  bhr  jjdti.  Note  also  such  forma¬ 
tions  as  mudha-  for  mugdhd-  and  finally  the  transference  to 
palatal  conjugation  of  the  root  ruh-  with  IE.  -dh. 

Single  verb  forms  with  4  for  - k  or  vice  versa  are  also  found. 
Thus  the  root  aorist  and  .y-aorist  of  roots  in  IE.  palatals  ought  to 
form  the  2d  person  sg.  in  - k  or  4  (<  older  -ks  or  -k's  before 
stops)  and  the  3d  person  sg.  in  4  (<  older  -ldt  or  -k'st).  As  a 
matter  of  fact  the  -k  forms  quoted  in  §12,  end,  ( adrdk ,  asrak) 
with  nak  (from  ?ias'-  ‘  attain  ’)  and  rok  (from  ruj-)  and  the  4 
forms  anat  (nas'  ‘attain’),  aprat ,  abhrat ,  ay  at,  asrat  are  used 
indifferently  for  the  two  persons.  The  forms  ay  as  and  sras  occur 
twice  each  for  the  2d  person  sg. ;  the  latter  form  is  explained  by 
Bartholomae  as  belonging  to  a  3d  sg.  *srat  with  4  for  4  through 
dissimilation  by  the  preceding  r.  Ayas  is  probably  quite  un- 
phonetic :  the  analogic  relationship  is  well  explained  by  Whitney, 
1-  c.,  §555.  a. 

Such  forms  as  uddlii  for  *udhi(<  *ug-dhi ),  imperative  of  vas'-, 
are  formed  on  the  model  of  dug-dhi  and  the  like,  with  the  feeling 
that  -s'  before  -dh  as  before  -bh  ought  to  give  -d.  sad-dka 
sad-dha  for  sodha  (<  *-egz-dh-)  are  of  course  of  similar  origin. 

19.  To  sum  up,  our  theory  of  the  IE.  palatals  in  Sanskrit  is  as 

s 

follows.  IE.  k  etc.  are,  in  accordance  with  the  standard  view, 
which  is  based  on  phonetic  likelihood,  supposed  to  have  been 
slightly  palatalized  velar  stops. — (1)  In  Aryan  (i.  e.  before  the 
palatalization  of  IE.  velars  and  labiovelars  and  before  the  subse¬ 
quent  change  of  IE.  e,  0  >  a)  there  were  two  dialects :  the 


52 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


•  •  •  ^ 
Iranian  with  strong  spirant  tendency,  which  developed  IE.  k  etc. 

so  rapidly  that  the  new  Ar.  palatals  could  not  coincide  with 
them  ;  and  the  Indie  which  spirantized  k  etc.  less  rapidly,  so 
that,  while  IE.  k  never  coincided  with  the  new  Ar.  palatals,  IE. 
g  and  gk  did.  Before  vowels,  semivowels,  nasals,  and  r  IE. 
k  g  gh  became  Sanskrit  s'  j  h. — Before  stops  and  sibilants  they 
at  first  remained  K  g' .  After  the  dropping  of  sibilants  between 
stops,  k's  became  Sanskrit  k's. — The  simplification  of  final  conso¬ 
nant  groups  reduced  -k\  to  Sanskrit  -k  and  -k't  to  -k' . — Now  hJt 
everywhere  became  st  and  g' cL(Ji)  everywhere  became  — d{h ). — 
(2)  Finally  and  g'  (which  now  remained  only  in  final  position 
and  before  labial  stops)  became  t  and  d. 

20.  Having  constructed  our  edifice  we  must  now  defend  it. 
The  two  points  most  liable  to  objection  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
current  theory  are  above  marked  as  (1)  and  (2).  We  shall  now 
consider  these  points. 

21.  As  to  point  (1),  we  must  observe  that  we  have  determined 
no  anterior  limit,  chronologically,  to  the  state  of  things  there 
described.  The  “  dialectic  ”  difference  between  Iranian  and 
Indie  in  the  treatment  of  the  IE.  palatals  may  date  back — and 
probably  does  date  back — to  the  time  when  the  IE.  dialects  first 
began  to  diverge  in  their  pronunciation  of  these  sounds. 

The  objection  to  (1)  then  will  be:  How  is  it  possible  that  of 
the  Aryan  sister  languages,  which  long  formed  a  unit,  making  in 
common  many  changes  of  pronunciation,  flexion,  use  of  forms, 
vocabulary,  etc.,  one  should  be  a  thorough-going  satdm  lan¬ 
guage,  the  other  far  from  that  and  almost  a  centum  language? 

We  may  answer  that  this  is  not  only  possible,  but  that  this  our 
view  is  decidedly  in  accordance  with  the  results  of  modern  inves¬ 
tigation.  When  we  say  that  Iranian  and  Indie  in  common 
changed  IE.  e}  o  to  a,  but  even  before  that  time — and  indeed 
from  the  Indo-European  time — diverged  in  the  pronunciation  of 
the  IE.  palatals,  we  are  only  implying  that  two  successive  sound 
changes,  though  in  part  coinciding  as  to  territory,  may  be  topo¬ 
graphically  of  different  extent.  Iranian  and  Indie  were  mutually 
intelligible  dialects  in  Aryan  times,  although  the  old  centum- 
satdm  sound  change  had  left  some  difference  between  them.  So 
the  Italic,  for  instance,  agrees  in  a  number  of  developments  with 
the  Celtic  and  in  a  number  with  the  Greek.  A  priori  it  is,  in 
fact,  much  more  likely  that  one  of  the  so-called  satdm  languages 
should  differ  somewhat  from  the  others  in  its  treatment  of  the 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


53 


palatals,  than  that  the  eastern  languages  and  the  western  lan¬ 
guages  should  be  cut  apart  like  two  halves  of  a  cheese. 

Such  a  division  as  that  between  ceyiium  and  satdm  languages 
has  value  only  as  a  description  or  classification  of  actual  facts. 
As  the  Sanskrit  does  not  actually  represent  the  IE.  palatals  by 
sibilants,  but  only  partly  so  and  mostly  by  palatal,  velar,  and 
lingual  stops,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  entirely  on  those  who 
wish  to  class  Sanskrit  with  the  sibilant  languages  and  insist  that 
the  Sanskrit  sibilants  are  hidden  behind  the  historic  Sanskrit 
stops. 

22.  This  brings  us  to  the  second  point  of  objection.  We  have 
supposed  that  in  certain  positions  the  IE.  palatals  remained 
palatalized  velar  stops  in  Indie  until  shortly  before  the  historic 
time,  when  they  were  changed  to  the  Sanskrit  lingual  stops.  In 
other  words,  we  assumed  a  sound  substitution  k*  g’  >  t  d  where 
the  current  view  supposes  a  development  of  kr  g'>  s'  z'  >  id 
Aside  from  the  methodic  consideration  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
suppose  such  a  roundabout  development  as  the  latter,  our  chief 
argument  was  that  a  development  from  s’  z'  to  t  d,  or  in  general 
from  sibilants  to  stops  is  improbable  and  unparalleled. 

The  objection  may  be  urged,  now,  that  this  development  is 
paralleled  in  Sanskrit,  that  the  IE.  sibilants  in  Sanskrit  some¬ 
times  appear  as  lingual  and  as  dental  stops.  Let  us  consider 
these  phenomena  and  attempt  to  divine  their  meaning.1 

We  must  note,  first,  that  the  actual  representation  of  IE.  sibi¬ 
lants  and  of  IE.  palatals  does  in  one  set  of  cases  universally  coin¬ 
cide  :  namely,  the  IE.  palatals  before  dental  stops  coincide  with 
Ar.  s  z  in  the  same,  position  (cf.  §  15). 

Secondly  we  must  note  that  the  following  representations  of 
IE.  sibilants  as  stops  are  rare  in  the  older  language.  If  in  some 
cases  the  analogies  involved  seem  indirect,  we  must  remember 
that  they  were  not  made  any  oftener  than  this  would  lead  us  to 
expect.  The  representations  in  question  become  regular  only 
after  the  grammarians,  who  naturally  were  struck  by  what  seemed 
to  them  decided  and  peculiar  sound-changes,  prescribed  them  as 
correct. 

1  To  avoid  constant  reference  to  the  divergent  view  we  may  here  refer  to 
Brugmann’s  Grundriss  I2,  §§819-830.  1005,  5.  1007,  II.  Examples  are  taken 
from  Brugmann  and  from  Whitney,  1.  c.,  §§  164-168,  b.  172.  172,  a.  225-226,  f. 
612,  b.  617,  b.  620,  b. 


54 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


Thus  when  we  find  a  few  cases  in  the  older  language  of  s 
before  s  in  inflection  “  becoming  ”  k ,  so  as  to  give  ks,  the  explana¬ 
tion  is  obvious : — vdsti  :  vdksi  —  vivesti  :  yiveksi.  Similarly, 
Vedic  2d  and  3d  s g.  pinak  as  if  from  a  palatal  root. 

So  obvious  is  this  explanation  that  even  some  advocates  of  the 
prevalent  view  have  decided  to  adopt  it,  although  giving  up  the 

v 

changes  >  k  forces  the  corollary  that  IE.  k  g  before  sibilants 
at  least  never  quite  became  sibilants,  but  were  “  Ar.  *  y  ”. 

The  second  supposed  change  of  sibilants  to  stops  is  that  to 
linguals.  Final  -s  (IE.  -s  +  -s  of  nom.  sg.  or  -s,  -t  as  verb  end¬ 
ings)  appears  in  a  few  old  cases  as  -t.  Later  this  is  considered 
regular,  and  the  final  -s  of  radical  noun  stems  appears  as  -t  -d 
also  before  the  endings  -su  and  - bh -,  e.  g.  dvisam ,  dvit,  dvitsii , 
dvidbhis  ;  imperfect  tense  :  advesam ,  ddvet ,  ddvet. 

The  standard  view  wisely  leaves  dvit,  ddvet  out  of  play ; 
dvitsu  is  allowed  to  be  unoriginal ;  but  dvidbhi§  is  considered  the 
regular  phonetic  development  of  *dviz-bhi$.  From  this  dvit,  etc., 
developed. 

The  facts  of  the  language  are  decidedly  against  this  view. 
The  prefix  dus-  nowhere  changes  its  final  to  a  stop,  lingual  or 
other;  similarly  the  adverb  sajus.  The  change  of  -s  to  td  occurs 
“  only  once  in  RV.  and  once  in  AV.  {-dvit  and  -prut),  although 
those  texts  have  more  than  40  roots  with  final  -s;  in  the  Brah- 
manas,  moreover,  have  been  noticed  further  only  -prut  and  vit 
SB.),  and  -s' lit  (K.)  ”.  On  the  other  hand  we  still  meet  in  RV. 
vives  and  d-vive\  from  vis-  and  perhaps  a  few  other  cases,  cf. 
Whitney,  1.  c.,  §§  225,  a.  226,  d.  Even  in  the  later  language 
most  cases  of  final  -s  fall  into  the  class  of  havis-  {havir  dsii , 
havis  tisthaii,  etc.,  havirbhik ,  havissu  or  kavih$u).  Our  judg¬ 
ment  has  been  too  much  under  the  spell  of  the  traditional 
descriptive  grammar,  which  naturally  emphasizes  the  most  strik¬ 
ing  changes.  It  was  the  similarity  of  vdsti  to  dvesti  (and  later  of 
vdksi  to  dveksi )  that  caused  ddvet  to  be  formed  like  dvat.  In 
the  case  of  the  nouns  the  necessity  was  felt  that  a  root  noun,  in 
the  nom.  sg.,  before  -bh,  and  before  -su,  had  to  have  a  stop. 
Owing  to  forms  like  ddvet  the  stop  thought  of  was  the  lingual. 
Otherwise  expressed:  as  s'  gave  in  various  connections  st,  ks, 
t,  ts ,  dbh,  s ,  which  also  gave  st  was  made  to  give  k$,  and  later  t, 
ts,  dbh.  Note  further  such  parallels  as  leksi  with  the  new  dveksi 
and  dlldhvam  with  {s- aor.)  astodhvam.  When  the  feeling  had 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


55 


arisen  that  the  stop  form  of  s  was  t  d,  forms  like  dviddhi  and 
forms  and  spellings  like  dviddhvam  arose,  cf.  uddhi ,  §  18,  end, 
and  Brugmann,  Gr.  I2,  §830,  Anm.  2. 

23.  Parallel  to  forms  with  k§  from  roots  in  -s  are  a  few  forms 
with  Is  from  roots  with  -s,  as  fut.  vatsyami  from  vas-,  desid. 
jighatsa  from  ghas-.  The  regular  treatment  would  have  given 
*vassyami>  etc.,  or  *vahsyami ,  etc.  (similarly  pronounced),  which 
were  not  felt  as  s-forms;  hence  imitation  of  the  nearest  lying 
combination  of  stops  +  s,  as  in  patsyami.  There  is  no  need  of 
any  such  far-fetched  explanation  as  change  of  s  to  /  before  s,  or 
development  of  a  stop  within  ss. 

Again,  parallel  to  the  supposed  change  of  -s  to  -t  -d  a  change  of 
-s  to  -d  is  considered  phonetic  in  the  Vedic  madbhis ,  etc.,  from  mas- 
and  usddbhis  from  usds- ;  but  there  is  no  reason  for  abandoning 
Whitney’s  explanation  of  these  forms  as  substitution  of  /-stem  forms 
for  ^-stem  forms.  Whitney  adduces  the  parallel  case  of  the  perf. 
act.  pple. ;  and,  in  general,  inflection  from  several  stems  is  so 
characteristic  of  the  older  stages  of  IE,  languages  that  these 
ancient  and  rare  forms  also  are  best  looked  upon  as  survivals. 
Cf.  for  the  rest  Goth,  mendps  and  the  relation  Sk. ydkrt, yakn-ds  : 
Lat.  jec-in-or-is . 

There  is  further  one  word  stem  in  which  IE.  z  is  said  to  have 
given  Sk.  d\  madgtlq-,  cf.  Lat.  mergus ,  which  belong  to  Sk. 
mdjja-ti ,  Lith.  mazgoti.  First  note  that  the  jj  in  mdjja-ti  is 
pronounced  d'df  (with  a  slight  glide),  c f.jj  <d  +j  in  taj  jalam. 
This  d' d'  is,  as  we  have  seen,  parallel  to  ( c)ch  (the  first  c  serves, 
of  course,  only  to  indicate  that  ch  is  a  double  consonant,  not  a 
mere  aspirate),  except  that  in  this  combination,  pronounced  t's', 
the  s'  corresponds  to  the  second  d'  of  the  voiced  combination, 
where  sibilant  could  not  be  pronounced.  Just  as  sk  (=  sk)  > 
s'k'h  >  s'k'x  >  s'l's'  >  I's'y  so  in  the  voiced  combination  zg',  with 
slower  development,  zg'  >  z' g' h  >  (some  such  thing  as)  d'y'  > 
d' d' .  Now  the  noun  *mazgu-  regularly  >  *megu-y  for  which 
madgu-  was  formed  from  mdjja-ti  just  as  tdd  gdcchaii  corres¬ 
ponds  to  taj  jagama  or,  practically,  as  tyagd-s  corresponds  to 
tydjati. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  alleged  developments  of  sibilants  to 
Sanskrit  stops  are  in  no  case  instances  of  phonetic  change. 


Note  on  the  IE.  “  sonant  aspirates  ”.  In  the  above  discussion 
the  treatment  of  IE,  gh  was  brought  up  as  little  as  possible, 


56 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY. 


owing  to  the  uncertainty  which  surrounds  the  nature  of  the  IE. 
“  sonant  aspirates  We  shall  here  recall  a  few  of  the  properties 
of  these  sounds  as  indicated  by  their  development  in  the  various 
IE.  languages  and  then  show  that  our  view  of  the  development 
of  the  IE.  palatals  in  Sanskrit  is  consistent  with  the  development 
of  IE.  gh  to  voiced  h. 

(1)  The  stop  element  in  the  IE.  “  voiced  aspirates  ”  was  voiced, 
as  a  preceding  voiceless  stop  is  assimilated.  The  second  element 
or  “  aspiration  ”  cannot  be  pronounced  before  an  immediately 
following  stop,  but  is  left  until  the  stop  or  stops  have  been  articu¬ 
lated,  and  is  then  uttered:  in  the  meantime  the  glottis  is  not 
opened,  i.  e.,  the  voice  continues,  as  in  “  assimilation  ”  of  surds 
to  sonants, — showing  the  “  aspiration  ”  to  have  been  a  voiced 
sound.  In  Sanskrit  when  the  stop  element  is  absent  the  sound 
uttered  is  a  “voiced  h  ”  ( stimmhafter  HaucK).  We  may,  then, 
provisionally  ascribe  to  the  “sonant  aspirates”  the  value  of  a 
stop  closely  followed  by  a  voiced  breathing — a  volume  of  breath 
being  sent  through  the  open  mouth  sufficient  to  be  audible  as  an 
aspiration  ( Hauch ),  but  not  sufficient  to  necessitate  greater  open¬ 
ing  of  the  glottis  than  is  consistent  with  voicing. 

(2)  The  inherent  difficulty  of  pronouncing  these  sounds  is  due 
to  the  general  fact  that  a  delicately  graded  or  “  halfway  ”  mus¬ 
cular  movement  is  harder  to  make  than  a  decided  or  “all  the 
way  ”  one.  Hence  the  instability  of  these  sounds.  They  are 
preserved  only  in  the  highly  conservative  and  ancient  Sanskrit. 
In  Germanic  they  were  preserved  up  to  the  time  of  the  sound- 
shifting,  when  they  were  changed  by  the  strong  breath  stress, 
which  probably  assimilated  the  stop  element  to  the  succeeding 
spirant  element.  Sanskrit  and  Germanic  alone  kept  the  “sonant 
aspirates  ”  apart  from  the  other  classes  of  stops.1 

(3)  In  Greek  and  Italic  a  total  opening  of  the  glottis  was 
substituted  for  the  delicately  graded  opening  with  voice  con¬ 
tinuation.  Thus  the  aspiration  became  voiceless  and  the  stop 
was  assimilated  to  it.  Similar  is  the  result  when  an  English- 
speaking  person  first  tries  to  pronounce  a  “sonant  aspirate  ”  as 

V 

above  described,  or  a  Cechish  voiced  h. 

(4)  The  other  IE.  languages  substituted  ordinary  vibration  of 
the  vocal  chords  for  the  period  of  more  open  vibration :  or,  from 

1  This  conservative  phonetic  character  of  Germanic  among  the  IE.  lan¬ 
guages  is  general,  cf.  a  forthcoming  paper  by  Dr.  E.  Prokosch. 


INDO-EUROPEAN  PALATALS  IN  SANSKRIT. 


57 


another  point  of  view,  they  assimilated  the  voiced  aspiration  to 
the  following  action  of  the  vocal  chords. 

(5)  The  difficulty  of  pronouncing  these  sounds  affects  even 
Sanskrit.  In  the  passage  from  vowel  to  stop  to  “  breathing  ”  the 
(lip  or)  tongue  had  to  make  its  stop  articulation  rapidly  :  and 
this  rapid  action  had  to  be  made  most  rapidly  exactly  where  it  is 
most  difficult,  in  the  back  of  the  mouth.  Hence  we  find  h  for  bh 
less  frequently  than  h  for  dh  ;  and,  could  we  distinguish  the  cases 
of  h  for  gh  from  those  of  h  for  (historic  or  analogic)  g'h,  there  is 
no  doubt  that  we  should  find  them  more  numerous  than  the  pre¬ 
ceding.  In  the  case  ofg'k  (<  IE.  and  Ar.  g'h)  the  difficulty 
of  pronunciation  was  by  far  greatest,  as  the  middle  tongue  had 
to  be  raised  to  the  highest  part  of  the  palate — an  articulation 
nowhere  retained  in  Sanskrit.  Hence  we  find  here  universal  loss 
of  the  stop  and  retention  of  voiced  h. 


Leonard  Bloomfield. 


t 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

OK  BALTIMORE 


American  Journal  of  Mathematics.  Frank  Morley,  Editor.  Quarterly. 
4to.  Volume  XXXIII  in  progress.  $5  per  volume.  (Foreign 
postage  50  cents.) 

American  Chemical  Journal.  Ira  Remsen,  Editor.  Monthly.  8vo. 

Volume  XLV  in  progress.  $5  per  year.  (Foreign  postage  50 
cents. 

American  Journal  of  Philology.  B.  L.  Gildersleeve,  Editor.  Quar- 
•  terly.  8vo.  Volume  XXXII  in  progress.  $3  per  volume. 
(Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.  8vo.  Volume  XXIX  in 
progress.  $3  per  volume.  Foreign  postage  50  cents. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Circular.  Including  the  Annual  Report  of 
the  President;  University  Register;  Medical  Department  Cata¬ 
logue.  Monthly.  8vo.  $1  per  year. 

Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletin.  Monthly.  4to.  Volume  XXII  in 
progress.  $2  per  year.  (Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Reports.  4to.  Volume  XVII  in  progress.  $5 
per  volume.  (Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

Contributions  to  Assyriology  and  Semitic  Philology.  Paul  Hauit  and 
Friedrich  Delitzsch,  Editors.  Volume  VII  in  progress. 

Memoirs  from  the  Biological  Laboratory.  Five  volumes  have  appeared. 

Modern  Language  Notes.  Edited  by  E.  C.  Armstrong,  J.  W.  Bright, 
H.  Collitz,  and  C.  C.  Marden  (Managing  Editor).  Eight  numbers. 
4to.  Volume  XXVI  in  progress.  $1.50  per  volume.  (Foreign 
postage  25  cents.) 

American  Journal  of  Insanity.  Quarterly.  8vo.  Volume  LXVII  in 
progress.  $5  per  volume.  (Foreign  postage  50  cents.) 

Terrestrial  Magnetism  and  Atmospheric  Electricity.  L.  A.  Bauer, 
Editor.  Quarterly.  8vo.  Volume  XVI  in  progress.  $2.50  per 
volume.  (Foreign  postage  25  cents.) 

Reprint  of  Economic  Tracts.  J.  H.  Hollander,  Editor.  Third  series 
in  progress,  $2. 

Reports  of  the  Maryland  Geological  Survey. 


STUDIES  IN  HONOR 

OF 

igW  V*  ;•  4  •  V  V  *>  J  * 

PROFESSOR  GILDERSLEEVE 

This  volume  contains  527  pages  together  with  a  photogravure  of 
Professor  Gildersleeve.  It  includes  44  separate  papers. 

The  volume  is  dedicated  to  Professor  Gildersleeve  in  commemora¬ 
tion  of  the  Seventieth  Anniversary  of  his  birth  by  his  pupils. 

Most  of  the  edition  of  the  volume  was  subscribed  for  in  advance  of 
issue.  The  few  copies  remaining  will  be  sold  at  the  price  of  $6.00 
(six  dollars)  each. 

Orders  may  be  addressed  to 

The  Johns  Hopkins  Press, 

Baltimore,  Maryland. 


